Posted
by
Cliffon Wednesday June 30, 2004 @04:08PM
from the gotta-read-something-other-than-Slashdot-right dept.

Osgyth asks: "Everyone is quick to complain about a magazine when the author makes a mistake or a stupid comment. Wired and PC Magazine are only some that have fallen to this attack. Which 'PC related' magazines does the Slashdot crowd read? Are they informative and accurate? Or merely read for their entertainment value?" Why limit the topic to just PC Magazines? What other periodicals do you all read that you find interesting?

No one is ever going to believe this, but! Many moons ago, before I could afford a computer. I did read Playboy for the articles. Honestly I don't get into that air-brushed, too much make-up, plastic girl crap. However the articles were the best source of news I could find on a regular basis. Then I finally stepped up to the real world, got a computer and a connection, I never looked back, but when you have the choice of TV/Newspapers or playboy, playboy servers as a better information source hands down.

As do I. I really like the long-format Playboy interview, and I've tracked down old issues based on finding, say, the Jimmy Carter "Lust in My Heart" issue or the last print interview Martin Luther King Jr. did before he was assassinated.

I love the heck out of older Playboys. Did you know that OJ Simpsons was once the spokesman for a line of Hunting Knives? I get a kick out of the tone of some of the then current-events articles and the little blurbs about the high-tech (e.g. Videodiscs in the late 70s) of the day.

Nowadays Playboy has moved closer to Maxim/FHM-style content, which I consider a sad state of affairs, but it's one general interest magazine I do generally read in its entirety.

One thing that REALLY SUPREMELY pisses me off is how much worse the content is in Cosmopolitan than Playboy. Open a Playboy, and the first 120 or so pages are largely political or general interest (the forum, the interview etc), then a 3 - 7 page pictorial, then 20 more pages of general-interest material or fiction, then the PMOM (3 - 7 pages), 50 more pages - fashion, sports etc., the last pictorial, then more general interest stuff. There might be an article about sex - history of contraception or somesuch, and there's the Advisor, which is a two page column that's about half sex questions in a given month, but... it's not generally bad or explicit.

Open a Cosmo: Fashion, fashion, celebrity news, DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS RELATED TO PROSTATE MASSAGE, general interest, fashion, diet tips, six pages on "Spit or Swallow"... basically, other than the ~15 pages of artistic nudes in Playboy, something like Cosmo is a FAR worse Smut Rag.

Excellent post. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one upset by their move to more of a Maxim type format.

My wife reads it as well. Often before I do, since she usually gets to the mail first.

I've had any number of friend's girlfriends who are shocked that my wife "allows me" to get the magazine. When I press the issue, asking if they've ever actually read one (or even opened one), the answer is always no.

I like your comparison to Cosmo. I'll have to remember the next time one of them gets holier-than-thou and implies that Playboy is in the same category as cheap pornography.

I was at the airport one time, and the magazines were all one section over from where they labels of the section were. So computer magazines were in a section labled 'Fashion', Fashion magazines were in a section labeled 'Business' and so on. All the porn was in the 'General Interest' section. Seemed appropriate.

Every month Playboy has something where the review software, games, and other tech stuff. They once reviewed Mozilla (Firefox didn't exist at the time, I don't believe) and gave it rave reviews. I thought that was pretty cool. I even brought the issue to school to show my nerdy friends, heh.

I have to disagree. Why not buy a BOOK on a subject with which you are unfamiliar? It has been my experience that magazines are only about 1/2 to 1/3 the price of a book, and the content is ridiculous compared to one.

That, and the endless advertisements makes me find magazines nearly useless. Have you seen the price of magazines lately? I was browsing some of the less popular magazines (in this case Skeptic), it was like $8 or something like that. PC Magazine is like $5+..

Have to agree. I never read magazines anymore, except for online versions and the odd comic book... but I go through about 4-5 books from the various public libraries around here a week. Tons of information, and all for free.

The problem with books is that if you're dealing with a field that is rapidly changing very often they are months or years behind the times. Magazines are usually only a month or two behind. Books are great for indepth analysis and historical information but magazines are better for up to date information and zeitgeist. The web tends to be even better for up to the minute information but there can be problems with signal to noise ratio due to the vast number of personal sites and issues around Googlebombing.

...the official magazine of Commander Taco. This week's issue finds
the Commander in the kitchen, where he'll show you how to re-use those
leftover stories...again and again! Mmm-mm! Then, it's off to "The
Taco Journal" where you'll learn that spelling really doesn't have to
count. Also in this issue, take a road trip with the Travelling Taco,
where he'll show you how to spice up a slow news day with obscure Menga
websites! And finally, join us in the kitchen, where the Taco show you
how to re-use those leftover stories!

T...The Magazine for the Slashdotter who missed the story the third time
around!

...the official magazine of Commander Taco. This week's issue finds the Commander in the kitchen, where he'll show you how to re-use those leftover stories...again and again! Mmm-mm! Then, it's off to "The Taco Journal" where you'll learn that spelling really doesn't have to count. Also in this issue, take a road trip with the Travelling Taco, where he'll show you how to spice up a slow news day with obscure Menga websites! And finally, join us in the kitchen, where the Taco show you how to re-use those lef

OH MY! You did know, of course, by slandering the patron Saint of Slashdot, you where destine for "flamebait", but it is still VERY funny.

It only re-affirms my belief that Slashdot mods are just very confused people. I mean, if you're going to mod me down, at least use "Off Topic." Flaimbait? Here's flamebait: Moderators have small penises! There's yer friggin flaimbait, bitches!

Oh, and so I can stay on topic, I read Sport Pilot, and Writers Digest. I'd say that PC Magazine sucks, but I think it's the official magazine of the Slashdot moderator. So I'll refrain.

Extra! [fair.org], the paper magazine of the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR).

FAIR analyzes how the media reports, what they report, what they don't report, and calls out their biases.

They've done a lot of work around telecommunications policy [fair.org], looking at what the governement is saying, what business is saying, and how it will affect you and me.

They don't speculate--I love them because they are so analytical. They are data heads who use the LexisNexis database to stastistically evaluate how the media does. Is there a conservative bias in media? They'll give you the numbers and let you decide.

I love everything about what FAIR does except one thing: The way they claim that they are impartial.

If they would just admit that they are using their "statistical analysis of LexisNexis" and such to support their biases, then they would be have much better marketplace utility.

If you want impartial, look at StratFor [stratfor.com], which fancies itself an "intelligence" oultet rather than "news." The difference being that people make decisions about their present and future actions based on intelligence, whereas news is simply to inform your opinion. Therefore intelligence must be impartial to be worth anything.

The way that I try to look at it is more of one of perspective. Is the glass half empty or half full? One person sees one thing, while another sees it a completely different way. Who is right? They both are!

It is impossible to be completely impartial! I like to look at thing as the media is mostle liberal with a liberal, while conservative news is closer to the truth. But I would be a fool to say that conservative news is always right and without bias.

Actually I've found the news reporting on FoxNews to be fairly much down the middle of the road. Now their *commentary* such as that given by Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reily, is definitely tilted to the right. But the actual news reporting seems fairly unbiased. Not at all like CNN, in my opintion. CNN tilts so hard to the left I feel dizzy after watching it. Speaking of Bill O., I have to laugh when he mentions his show is a "no spin zone". He has more spin that just about any show I watch.

FAIR reports that Halliburton has made US$4,508,231,125 trillion dollars mining stem-cell futures in Gadzookistan in the past forty-five minutes alone.

Jesus, who was a liberal, said that abortion is wrong. Since only aborted harp seals can operate the machinery used to mine stem-cells in the giant redwoods of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, this practice is clearly in opposition to the will of God, and also against the will of God's boss (Noam Chomsky).

You are, therefore, a fascist, an atheist, a corporatist bourgeois swine, a damned foreigner, a sexist pig, a child-molester, and a jerk. I hate you. The whole world hates you. FAIR has demonstrated that the New York Times has run NOT ONE STORY in the past year reporting that the whole world hates you and the God-fearing, Bible-believing multicultural harp seal fetus that you rode in on, you evil freak. This is stark media bias at its most reprehensible.

You can get Jesus out of the schools, but you can't get him out of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge! He hates you too, by the way. Because you hate fags, you damned fag. And because you don't use Linux. BSD is, after all, dying. Where will YOU be on Judgement Day? Installing XP Service Pack Twelve, you pathetic deluded sheep?

A friend still has a subscription to it, and finds it worthwhile to continue. I occasionally grab a copy from him for interesting articles, such as the one they had a couple of years ago about ripping audio.

While Wired can still be interesting (I read it since I started getting a free subscription somehow) it has steadily turned into the "shiny things" computer magazine. Anything stupidly expensive instantly gets coverage. PC Magazine went from being a reasonable source of information to a huge glut of advertisements with worthless content sprinkled in here an there.

2600 is entertaining still and I buy it regularly (don't want to be on that subscription list though *GASP*!) although some of the articles list tech information that's just nowhere near correct. A little too heavy on the lame windows exploits/security information too.

But Wired has a lot of great cultural coverage; nobody really cares about the stupid device reviews, they're just filler. It's always interesting to hear what's going on in the minds of people who are philisophically advancing the world of technology (even if the big articles they print are often by extremists). Agreed, as a computer magazine Wired has little worth. But as a cultural magazine it's better than any tech rag I've found (though I'd LOVE to hear suggestions if you've got any).

Maxim (Stuff to) is the male equivalent of reading Cosmo: it just makes you feel inadequate. You're not going to wear their fashion, you're never gonna throw those kinds of parties, sex... well, you get my point. And if you are one of the few select males that does live that lifestyle, you don't read Maxim.

I buy 2600 [2600.com] magazine regularly and enjoy it. I used to also pickup blacklisted 411 [blacklisted411.net] but I haven't seen it anywhere in several years! Anyone read/read (thats currently read/have read before) it?

I also read DDJ and C/C++ users journal. But I've found DDJ hasn't had any meaty articles in ages. Mainly bought it for the cdrom full of backissues. What I'd really like is a mag with good algorithms and practices/approaches to solving problems. Either original code or analysis of existing GPL/free/etc code, what they are doing that works well, etc. There is a LOT of very advanced methods of problem solving out there but all I seem to see in these magazines are articles on things such as "string concatentation", a review of Windows XP SP2, and a lame "history" of jargon and acronyms (to cite a few sleepers). Anyone know any good magazines that fill this void?

I used to enjoy Boot which I think is now Maximum PC. Haven't read it in a long time. Is it still any good? I remember they started a Maximum Linux or something and made a handful of issues before canning it.

We also have (Portland, OR area) a free magazine that's been around for ages that rocks called Computer Bits [computerbits.com]. Mainly just good for finding good deals on computers and related equipment/services from local companies. BUT back in the day they had a large list of local BBS's which was a good reference! They also sometimes have good articles.

Smithsonian and Discover are the magazines of choice, but only for the pictures! Oh and Sysadmin Magazine, which always has useful articles in it (can't wait to dig through the CDROM they sent with their back issues on it).

I gave up buying consumer PC mags as they didn't tell me anything that I hadn't already found out at least 6 weeks before. I still read some of the weekly trade magazines though, mainly because I get them free at work.

Other than that, the only ones I buy are related to mountain bikes, or occasionally hi-fi kit.

Scientific American has become a shallow, dumbed-down, replacement of what it was for many, many years; a collection of serious and in-depth articles covering scientific discoveries of the time.
My Dad kept every issue back in the 60's, frequently referring back to them during his many forays in the world of physics, math, & chemistry. They were twice as thick as the current issues, with almost zero advertisements. The magazine today is only a small step above Popular Science, probably closer to Omni magazine.

Exactly.
I stopepd buying magazines after i got hooked with interesting Internet content. Yes *even* slashdot:)
You want pr0n? you've got it.
You want funny stuff? Clicks way.
you want information? Not only do you have the kind you are looking for but you can get it much less 'filtered' than you otherwise would.

My point is that the Internet is killing the newpaper/magazine industry. It's only us, the geeks, for now, but it is surely going to spread.
The big problem for them is that i can get the same stuff (usually better) from the Internet *for free*. Which means that they can just say: "Hey, let's make an on-line edition of our magazine" and save themselves. They have to provide content that i can't get elsewere.

Smithsonian, [smithsonianmag.com] the official mag of the Smithsonian Institution [si.edu]. I always tell people, if you can't find at least one article of interest in any given issue, than you are a very boring person.

Wow, this is exactly what I was going to put. Glad I read through the comments first.

Smithsonian is a great, great magazine. As you said, there's pretty much guaranteed to be at least one good article in every issue--for example, the little blurb on urban exploration a few months ago. And the column on the last page (I forget what it's called) is pretty reliably funny. I've even enjoyed reading articles that I thought I would have no interest in, like that one a while back about collecting bugs in--Central

Excellent magazine! I also have subscriptions to Wired and Discover, but Smithsonian is the one I look forward to every month. They cover a great range of topics and the articles are generally very well written and photographed. It's a lot like National Geographic in some ways, but with a little wider range, and more in-depth content. Great mag!

Consumer Reports [consumerreports.org] is great. They don't accept advertising, the magazine is published by a non-profit [consumersunion.org] company and they actually buy every product they test (no freebies or special "demo" models). It makes them incredibly trustworthy and unbiased.

Linux Journal [linuxjournal.com] is a great magazine too. Their articles are incredibly rich in technical details - and the coverage isn't just linux kernel focused. They also have great articles about system administration tools, embedded systems, new hardware and general open source software development. They do accept advertising, but the ads are actually useful and relevant -- embedded h/w suppliers, cluster computing manufacturers, hosting providers, etc. I'm sure this is all preaching to the choir, though.

Informative and Funny. How can you go wrong? Seriously, this is the more entertaining than I thought a computer magazine could be. The writers are brilliant.

I also read whatever magazines the previous occupants of our house subscribed to. This usually amounts to Latina and Stuff. I wouldn't recommend Stuff. It's like Playboy without the softcore porn and competent writers.

The New Yorker because it has funny cartoons to get you going, fiction and non-fiction. They had a really good articles about google a while back. Lot of interesting off beat stuff. Good short stories.

The economist is more on world events the economy (although it includes that too). They have interesting perspective on things.

I agree with you about the New Yorker - it's currently the only magazine to which I subscribe, but the cost isn't too expensive, since they publish close to 50 issues per year. Plus, its proper grammar counter-balances Slashdot.:)

My favorite columnist is Peter Schjeldahl, the art critic. I learn - or at least am exposed to - at least one new word in every article he writes and he has amazing density. Take this example, from a recent issue (June 7): "The god of the plains is an orthodox minimalist, specializing in brute coups of uninflected space and light."

A densely packed periodical with a ton of well thought out opinion pieces that cover the whole world. Their articles contain a lot of fact but are - ultimately - opinion pieces. I don't always agree with them, but when I don't I have to sit down and think about my reasons.

Although, if you read their technology quarterly you realise that they aren't delving that deep into each issue they research.

Agreed. The Economist is excellent. Even when I don't agree with the Economist, at least they don't assume that I'm a 5th grader, the way most of the American newsweeklies do. There's far less of that, "A Nation Mourns" sort of sweeping generalization that Newsweek and Time live by.

As others have mentioned, The Atlantic [theatlantic.com] is a bright spot on the American media landscape. It's impressive in that it shows a lot of the deeper trends, and it isn't afraid to explore ideas. Instead of focusing on controversy, the articles tend to be more about getting past the shrill argument and down to the real matter at hand. William Langeweische and James Fallows write brilliantly. It's worth noting that the Atlantic has offered perhaps the best overall coverage of 9/11 and its aftermath of any American magazine.

For those who complain about supporting advertising, check out The New Republic [tnr.com]. It gets right down to business. The pages don't have much advertising. Excellent coverage of a wide variety of topics make it a worthy suppliment to the Economist, and proof that not all American publishers underestimate the average American's brain power.

It can be very worthwhile to read The New Republic and then read The National Review [nationalreview.com]. Also not aimed at children, the National Review is solidly right-wing Catholic. The experience of reading both magazines one after another can be incredibly jarring. But for me it reveals a lot about why American politics is dominated by polarization and controversy. It also forces me to confront a world-view that overlaps with my own only infrequently.

I stopped reading magazines all together years and years ago. Too little content for too much money (seriously, why pay for advertising?)

Reminds me of the Fight Club quote:

We're consumers. We are by-products of a lifestyle obsession. Murder, crime, poverty, these things don't concern me. What concerns me are celebrity magazines, television with 500 channels, some guy's name on my underwear.

I pay for The Nation [thenation.com], which is an excellent news/politics weekly. Some of the stuff is online, but there's nothing like having the paper itself for the train.

I used to get Harper's [harpers.org] but I really don't have time to finish a Harpers and they usually just end up in the bathroom after I've read the main story. A fine magazine with some very intelligent writing. The Harper's index [harpers.org] is worth the admission price alone.

I subscribe to salon.com too. I never understood the allure of Lumpen and the other 'hip' liber

I read C't too whenever I travel. It is a very well-balanced magazine having both articles for the beginner (ok, not completely newbies) and for the advanced. It has very comprehensive product comparisons and tests. The Q&A sections are accurate as far as I can tell.

In addition, when I read the magazine on planes chatty people leave me a alone (non-germans thinking "oh no! a german", while germans think "oh no! a computer nerd":-).

It is not a PC magazine but I read The Atlantic [theatlantic.com]. My favorite 'everything' magazine and it contains "Real Information" (not just a bunch of celeb news). Sometimes they lean a little to the left in the ditorials, but overall I think they attempt to present a fair view of the world. Check out the online version for some pretty hefty reading.

The Economist - intelligent political and economic coverage with a distinct UK/European background. Smart enough to make you think even if you disagree with its editorial slant, as I often do.

The New Yorker - good writing, often thought provoking and cartoons.

Atlantic Monthly - more intelligent current affairs writing.

Granta - excellent if sometimes inconsistent modern fiction.

GQ - decent men's magazine, although the US edition is noticebly dumbed down in comparison with the UK edition.

Premiere - movie reviews and in-depth articles on the entertainment industry; think Entertainment Weekly with brains and a staff of almost journalists:-)

Of the computer-related magazines, I used to subscribe to Wired, but it has descended into mediocrity in the last few years. At least it had verve during the dotcom years. I also enjoyed Byte and have issues going back to the early 80's. It was beginning to head towards just another PC review magazine before it folded, but in its heyday it really was a hobbyist's delight.

The Economist stands out as the best current-events magazine I've ever read. Well written, informed, and wickedly funny at times. I wish I could find the image, but about 10 years ago they had a cover story titled, "The Truth About Mergers."

The picture on the front of the magazine was a photo of two camels in the heat of the moment, and the one on the bottom looked decidedly unhappy about it...

I used to love reading computer related magazines. There's just something great about laying on a couch while you read. However, the net destroyed all of that fun. I'd read stories online and then read the same "news" a few weeks later in the magazine. Rather than pay for deja vu, I stopped subscribing. News stops being news when it turns old.

The Chicago Tribue [chicagotribune.com] recently published a list of the year's "50 Best Magazines."

Notably, Wired took the #1 spot:

1. Wired: After a wobbly post-boom period, Wired has transformed itself from an insider computer monthly into a slick, smart and playful cultural journal. The reporting is excellent ("The Future of Food," "The New Diamond Age," for instance) and the graphics deliver some of the best short-form journalism in the business. The back-page feature Found" and the upfront section "Start" are consistently strong, and even the "Letters" page crackles with energy. The writing staff is lively yet authoritative, and columnists Lawrence Lessig and Bruce Sterling are smart without being snooty. Even the ads are cool. Finally: We dare you to show us a better magazine Web site (Wired.com).2. Real Simple3. The Economist4. Cook's Illustrated5. Esquire6. The New Yorker7. American Demographics8. Men's Healthy9. Jane10. Consumer Reports

Myself, I read Atlantic Monthly, The New Yorker, The New Republic, Aperture, Harpers and Scientific American. I'm thinking of picking up Reason, Foreign Affairs, The Economist and The Weekly Standard.

The best "PC Related" Magazine that I know of is c't [heise.de].
Very insightful, good know-how articles, writers that know their stuff and even an occasional homebrew hardware project (like a USB / RS232 Interface in the latest issue)

What other PC tabloid these day still has detailed architectural comparisons between the latest AMD and Intel creations. Or will devote pages to the advantages vs. disadvantages of the current RAM technologies.

I would compare c't to Byte Magazine in the mid-80s, before Byte went "mainstream".

This is my favorite source of book reviews (with editorials and the occassional movie review thrown in). I find it much better than the NY Times Sunday Book Review which often isn't much more than a plot capsule and a reviewer stating whether they liked it or not (they always like the book).

The reviewers in the New York Book Review usually bring up challenges to the argument/methodology used in the books reviewed. Most of the reviews also cover 2 or 3 books on the same topic, comparing the strengths/weaknesses of each.

Just a warning though, there is an obvious liberal bias to the review. It isn't of the Michael Moore/Al Franken variety that "all republicans suck" but is more reasoned and researched arguments against specific policies. And even though I'm liberal it would be nice to have some intalligent consevative views printed more often just for variety's sake.

About the only critcism I have of the magazine is that nearly every issue for over a year now has had an article (usually an editorial as opposed to an actual book review) on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (almost uniformily critical of the Israelis). Which is fine, Israel is certainly open to some criticism, but after ten articles it becomes a little tiresome.

I used to subscribe to Men's Health and found the health and fitness articles informative and well written, but after 2 years the articles became a bit repetitive. Other than medical updates there is only so much you can really write about doing arm curls.

I mean, 300 comments and nobody mentioned it yet? Maybe I have a grossly inflated opinion of them, and someone can clue me in as to if they suck, and why.

The magazine is short, to the point, has a truckload of awesome tips and tricks sections (most of which would be of interest to even advanced computer users), has phenomenally accurate hardware and software reviews (to the point where I'm almost inclined to take their reviews as gospel) and it has a good geeky attitude that makes it an entertaining read. I've been a subscriber since they were called Boot magazine in the mid-1990s, and to this day I've never seen anything to make me doubt their integrity or make me want to cancel my subscription. It's also a damn cheap mag, renewals are usually $12 for the year.

Basically if you give a damn about computer hardware, you should have a subscription. Very highly recommended.

Every week, topical, broad, and well written. Rarely do they publish completely stupid articles, without at least acknowledging that many readers might find them so, New Scientist is the best magazine out there.

They publish good computer related articles as well, from social issues like privacy and security to physics issues of fabrication techniques.

Most importantly though, they still have a concept of journalism, unlike WIRED's mornoic McLuhian "there is no objectivity" "geeks are our heroes" "all technology is perfect and wonderful" breathlessness that overwhelms any actual intellectual value that might lurk accidently unexpunged from their articles. Unfortunately their worse-than-useless meme has infected most of the US technical press to a greater or lesser extent.

Technology Review used to be good, but took a huge dive into pathetic pandering and breathless sensationalism under the train wreck that was John Benditt. They started to recover a tiny bit under Robert Buderi, but alas, they've just replaced him with somone from that other "long boom" loosers magazine, Red Herring, though I don't know anything else about Jason Pontin and he may turn out to be smart - perhaps he left Red Herring out of disgust?

Why is it that random placement of irrelevant paragraphs and illegible typography has become central to any US magazine's technology identity? If there was one thing more stupid and ill-concieved than WIREDs self professed end of objectivity, it was the illegibility they passed off as cutting edge design, after stealing it from Mondo 2000 and cleaning it up a bit.

Even that centuries old bastion of reason and depth, Scientific American, has succumbed to the "expanded readership" afforded shallow, mindless optimism and has scaled back their thinking articles for more content that would be at home in WIRED's pages, and seems to have cut back on opposing views, letting corporate flacks define the market impact of their inventions without any critical review - the very heart of WIRED's journalistic abdication.

As far as I've found, aside from professional journals, that leaves New Scientist as the best source of real news about technology, and the only source I've found with any critical analysis of the consequences of an invention or discoverty.

The reason why I rant so is that, particularly since the advent of the internet, WIRED style breathless but glossy reprints of corporate press releases are irrelevant. When I want to know what Microsoft thinks is their greatest innovation, I'll go to their website and save my money. What I'm willing to pay for is a journalist who takes the time to read MSFT's latest boast, then finds the people who can meaningfully and authoritatively comment on the veracity of the release and integrates the answers, all properly attributed. Only New Scientist still does this.

I've tried just about everything, trying to find an efficient way to stay as informed as possible. One principle I've learned: The longer time there is between publications (hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, etc), the better the articles. I guess it shouldn't be surprise.

Not just magazines, in rough order of how essential they are.

NEWS AND CURRENT EVENTS

* National Journal Daily Briefing: If you read one thing every day, make it this national headline summary from the beltway publication, the National Journal. Available for free here: doonesbury.com/media/dailybriefing/index.html (there's nothing about it that will remind you of Doonesbury).

* The Economist: I can't add to what's been said above

* The Atlantic: They ask great questions, and think well. They get a little too far from the facts some times, but otherwise fantastic.

* Foreign Affairs: Written by the leading foreign policy experts.

* Stratfor.com: Cold hard geopolitical intelligence, not news. Far superior to most other sources in their predictions, analysis, and willingness to address the fundemental, practical questions.

* BBC World Service Newshour: The toughest journalists around. The interviews are the best, with regular pregnant pauses from world leaders. Unfortunately, at an hour a day with no index to the segments, too time-consuming.

WORLDWIDE PERSPECTIVES

* News International from Pakistan: (jang.com.pk/thenews) I've looked around for good '3rd world' media; this daily isn't perfect, but they're far ahead of most peers. Esp. good when balanced with...

* Hindustan Times: Another excellent daily from the developing world.

* AFP: The major French newswire covers stories omitted elsewhere.

* Institute for War and Peace Reporting: (iwpr.net) Unique, close-to-the-action coverage of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and other hot spots.

* SCIENCE: ScienceWeek (scienceweek.com) If you want efficient, serious coverage of science, there's no peer; Scientific American is for wimps. Absolutely take a look at this weekly. I can't recommend them enough.

* PUBLIC OPINION: PollingReport.com: Summaries of all major polls at one, well organized, no-nonsense website.

* BASEBALL: Baseball Primer weblog: (baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer) If you're as much a baseball geek as you are a computer geek.

The fact that your (wife|girlfriend) doesn't get annoyed by pictures of half-nekkid hotties in your reading material is more likely a result of your choice in women rather than your choice in reading materials.

The trick is to wait around on FatWallet or Anandtech forums until one of the free subscriptions comes around for Stuff/Maxim/FHM. My Suff and Maxim subscriptions have been paid for until 2009 with nothing more then me filling in my name on a form.

I read The Economist [economist.com]. The articles are well-written and insightful and, since it's published in London, you get a non-US perspective which is hard to find these days. Also, it doesn't try to be exclusively conservative [foxnews.com] or liberal [salon.com] (not that there's anything wrong with that -- I read Salon too).

They do tend to see free-market capitalism as the cure for everything. I don't really have a problem with this (in fact, market-based solutions often work in places you might not expect them to), but it's something

What on earth is up with this? I'm looking through this comment thread, and every other magazine people are listing is porn. Geez, if that's not a statement about slashdot's typical posting audience, I don't know what is...

Have you been living under a rock the past 5 years? Sex sells! And if you live in any place other than the US you would probably already know that as they have more racy stuff on national television than most men's magazines can have. Plus, most of these magazines also offer a lot of insight into women, in fact just as much info that a women's Bible "Cosmo" would let into on a man.

I actually have read some of Cosmo's crap and I find it racier than Maxim. The stories seriously sound like Penthouse's reader's letters and the "sex discussions" are more like alt.sex.stories.moderated than anything.

Sex does sell and it sells well. I don't see what the big surprise is. So what? Are we all supposed to subscribe to boring publications like the New Yorker?

I'm surprised so many Slashdot readers like Maxim. I'll read one if I find it somewhere, but I wouldn't pay for it. To me, Maxim represents everything that people on here usually hate, except for the hot chicks of course. Maxim's sole purpose is to sell products. Every article in there seems to be an advertisement in disguise (Men's Health does this too). This is in addition to the fact that the magazine is half ads anyway, and you pay about $7 for a newsstand copy. Why do we despise ads on the web but not in a magazine that we paid for?

Ah, good. I was looking for some potential converts to the world of Gene Roddenberry. Phasers can shoot through light-sabers, you know.

Careful, the tea's hot. And everyone knows that Imperial Shields can stop any energy/ballistic attack as long as the Shield Generators remain undamaged. Then Darth Vader would force-choke Captain Kirk into submission.

Mmm, good tea. May I have a scone?

Oh, please do.

Thank you. But that's absurd, if Geordi modulated the phasars on a plasma-variance intercorrelation loop, the meso-barions surrounding the ---

*knock knock* Is this the Paris Hilton vs. Natalie Portman thread?

(all) next thread, by the water cooler

Ah, much obliged. *leaves*

--look, Kirk was a ninny, anyway.

Hey, Kirk could kick Picard's pseudo-French hiney any day of the week!

Oh yeah, well Picard favorably impressed the Q continuum, so in them he has the friendship of a literal race of Gods, I think I've made my point.

See here, let's not have this bickering and whining about who killed who..

The Economist is not 'conservative' - that'd be the Tory version you are referring too. They most certainly are not a Tory magazine.

Nor are they left wing - in fact they are very opinionated about socialists, Social Democrats and all of that ilk. State control is anathema to them.

To describe the Economist in the traditional way you would refer to them as Liberals. The original Liberals that is.

Now in the US you refer to Michael Moore as a Liberal - WTF? Go figure - he's a socialist dude! Make that Socialist with a capital S.

Liberal in the original British meaning basically means Liberty and freedom for all people to pursue happiness and self-fulfillment. Usually this is exercised in an economic sense by way of markets, where individuals and groups of individuals agree to exchange goods and services to mutual benefit.

Liberals espouse low taxes, self help and community participation. Liberals also believe that the role of government is only to provide and enforce the legal framework to ensure this freedom.

Bush is not a Liberal in this sense - Steel Tarrifs and his intervention in markets show him up as pandering to special interests.

Moore is not a Liberal in this sense as a close reading of his works shows that he favours favours for special interests as well. Affirmative Action and State intervention and a desctruction of incentives for self help are all through his writings.... but he does provide a useful tonic. And a bit of Bush-whacking never goes unappreciated.

The Economist is Liberal in the social realm too. Years ago they had a cover story stating "Let them Wed" with a wedding cake decorated with two grooms. The Economist is pro gay marriage, pro-choice (but anti-abortion) - anti-prohibition (alcohol and drugs) and all for the decriminalisation and legalisation of the sex industry. It basically sees the choice to make these decisions as the concern of individuals - not for the state to get involved.

There is a clear parallel between this social liberalism and economic liberalism. The Economist believes that given the opportunity people will make decisions that are best for themselves, and in doing so will make decisions in the interest of everyone. We are all members of society and when individuals thrive so does society.

So in what way does this make them look like "raving Marxists" ? - especially when it views George Bush as being dangerously ready to make state interventions in the economy.

I think that the mistake you are making is assuming that social liberalism is the province of "trendy lefties" (Socialists) when in fact it is a more rational set of ideas focussed on the notion of individual freedom.

Now that is something that most Americans should be able to agree with - especially as the Economist is one of the most Pro-American publications on the planet... even if has huge doubts about Bush. It will be interesting to see who they plump for in the US Election. They've been right (as in correct) in the last few elections... Clinton x2 and Bush x1.

But I think the US view of the world of left and right will prevail - and in such a black and white world the Economist can't be described - and I admit - Liberal is too confused a meaning.

So I propose that we refer to the Economist as Pragmatic. Whatever works is good.